New Zealand has been showered with plaudits for its success in controlling the coronavirus pandemic. This article, just a month ago, even reported that the virus had been "eradicated" locally. That didn't last long, as a pair of visitors from (surprise, surprise) the UK reintroduced the infection. Still, there's no doubt that under the leadership of the decisive but empathetic Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and with a big helping hand from the country's geographical isolation, New Zealand has done a far better job than just about everyone else.
Long may Ms Ardern's success continue. But nothing lasts forever, and it might be worth remembering that not so long ago, New Zealand's economy was a complete basket case. This long paper describes how New Zealand failed to piggyback on the Volcker Fed's anti-inflation push in the early 1980s, resulting in a severe currency crisis in 1984.
That crisis was followed by a rapid deregulation and transformation of the economy on neo-liberal lines. This brought painful consequences for many previously protected sectors and greatly reduced the role of the state in the economy. Famously, a zoo had to kill a newborn baby hippopotamus because it could not afford to feed it, an event that provided the inspiration for an angry book by the Canadian leftist journalist Linda McQuaig.
Reflecting the post-1984 reforms, the nation Ms Ardern leads still has a much smaller government sector than most comparable countries. Government spending amounted to about 38 percent of GDP in 2018, very close to the figures for the United States and Australia, but below the levels posted by Canada (about 41 percent) and the EU (average of 45 percent, with France at 55 percent).* Evidently success against COVID is not so much about how much you spend as about how well you spend it. That appears to be something New Zealand is good at these days, but as events in the fairly recent past remind us, that wasn't always the case.
* Data from OECD and other sources; figures are of course reflective of the pre-COVID era.
Showing posts with label Current affairs; Tony Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current affairs; Tony Blair. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 July 2020
Tuesday, 16 June 2020
Trade versus aid
A loud blast from my past today, with Boris Johnson announcing that the UK will be merging its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) with the Department for International Development (DfID). My first job after graduating university, exactly fifty years ago this summer, was in the economics department of the FCO in Whitehall. I was particularly interested in development economics, so I soon found myself working on aid-related issues.
The UK aid program at the time was run by a body called the Overseas Development Administration or ODA. It had recently lost its status as a separate ministry and become part of the FCO, but was very prickly about asserting its independence as much as possible. The FCO had an interest in using aid funds to pursue the UK's overall foreign policy interests, while the ODA stood for aid pure and simple, directed to those most in need.
The ODA even resisted pressure to "tie" UK aid to UK exports, something the FCO and the Trade Department strongly favoured. If the UK gave a country money to buy a fleet of ambulances, the FCO view was that the vehicles should be UK made. The ODA always said no to this, and at least in my day, the ODA usually prevailed*.
Over the years there have been a lot of changes, well summarized in this Wikipedia article. The ODA re-acquired full status as a Ministry, becoming the ODM, then lost its independence and was folded into the FCO. It assumed its present identity as DfID in 1997. In general, Labour governments have tried to keep the aid agency independent, while Tories have preferred to lump it back in with the FCO, so Johnson's announcement today is in keeping with history.
It is clear that Johnson's government seeks to make the UK's aid program highly political. It appears, for example, that the government is much more inclined to direct UK aid funds to countries bordering Russia which, based on their income levels, are arguably not appropriate recipients of aid at all, rather than to genuinely poor Third World countries. Unsurprisingly, then, the announcement has been met with a chorus of dismay, not just from aid-oriented charities but also from some of Johnson's predecessors, including Tony Blair and, more surprisingly, David Cameron.
The result of this merger, set to happen in the fall, is depressingly predictable: it will be bad for aid and it will be bad for UK diplomacy. And there's one practical consideration that could have big ramifications. In my day, attending a meeting at the ODA involved a pleasant ten-minute walk through St James's Park to their offices. Now, much of the DfID workforce is located in East Kilbride, just south of Glasgow. With Scottish nationalist sentiment on the rise again, will BoJo dare to shift some of those jobs back to London? Stay tuned.
* I must have been reasonably diplomatic in my dealings with the ODA, because when an opportunity came up for someone to work for the Caribbean Development Bank in Barbados, paid out of the ODA budget, I got the gig. That ultimately led to me pitching up here in Canada, but that's another story.
The UK aid program at the time was run by a body called the Overseas Development Administration or ODA. It had recently lost its status as a separate ministry and become part of the FCO, but was very prickly about asserting its independence as much as possible. The FCO had an interest in using aid funds to pursue the UK's overall foreign policy interests, while the ODA stood for aid pure and simple, directed to those most in need.
The ODA even resisted pressure to "tie" UK aid to UK exports, something the FCO and the Trade Department strongly favoured. If the UK gave a country money to buy a fleet of ambulances, the FCO view was that the vehicles should be UK made. The ODA always said no to this, and at least in my day, the ODA usually prevailed*.
Over the years there have been a lot of changes, well summarized in this Wikipedia article. The ODA re-acquired full status as a Ministry, becoming the ODM, then lost its independence and was folded into the FCO. It assumed its present identity as DfID in 1997. In general, Labour governments have tried to keep the aid agency independent, while Tories have preferred to lump it back in with the FCO, so Johnson's announcement today is in keeping with history.
It is clear that Johnson's government seeks to make the UK's aid program highly political. It appears, for example, that the government is much more inclined to direct UK aid funds to countries bordering Russia which, based on their income levels, are arguably not appropriate recipients of aid at all, rather than to genuinely poor Third World countries. Unsurprisingly, then, the announcement has been met with a chorus of dismay, not just from aid-oriented charities but also from some of Johnson's predecessors, including Tony Blair and, more surprisingly, David Cameron.
The result of this merger, set to happen in the fall, is depressingly predictable: it will be bad for aid and it will be bad for UK diplomacy. And there's one practical consideration that could have big ramifications. In my day, attending a meeting at the ODA involved a pleasant ten-minute walk through St James's Park to their offices. Now, much of the DfID workforce is located in East Kilbride, just south of Glasgow. With Scottish nationalist sentiment on the rise again, will BoJo dare to shift some of those jobs back to London? Stay tuned.
* I must have been reasonably diplomatic in my dealings with the ODA, because when an opportunity came up for someone to work for the Caribbean Development Bank in Barbados, paid out of the ODA budget, I got the gig. That ultimately led to me pitching up here in Canada, but that's another story.
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
How soon is now?
Just about nobody had been expecting the Fed to raise the funds target again today. Thus, the only real point of interest in today's FOMC press release was the timing of the previously-announced plan to start unwinding QE (or balance sheet normalization, as the Fed prefers to call it). Would the Fed announce a timetable?
No, it would not. The press release simply stated that the FOMC "expects to begin implementing its balance sheet normalization program relatively soon". Exact timing, as with the further rate hikes that are surely coming, depends on the data flow.
It's hard to blame the Fed for keeping its cards close to its collective chest. No central bank has ever tried anything like QE before; the experiment has almost certainly run for much longer than the FOMC expected when it launched it; and there is no playbook for unwinding it. Ending QE will not be like pulling off a bandage, where the faster you do it, the less it hurts. Getting this wrong could be way more damaging than tightening rates a little too fast. All the same, a touch more clarity from the Fed today might have been helpful, if only to avoid the impression that it doesn't quite know how to proceed.
No, it would not. The press release simply stated that the FOMC "expects to begin implementing its balance sheet normalization program relatively soon". Exact timing, as with the further rate hikes that are surely coming, depends on the data flow.
It's hard to blame the Fed for keeping its cards close to its collective chest. No central bank has ever tried anything like QE before; the experiment has almost certainly run for much longer than the FOMC expected when it launched it; and there is no playbook for unwinding it. Ending QE will not be like pulling off a bandage, where the faster you do it, the less it hurts. Getting this wrong could be way more damaging than tightening rates a little too fast. All the same, a touch more clarity from the Fed today might have been helpful, if only to avoid the impression that it doesn't quite know how to proceed.
Wednesday, 6 July 2016
Worst. Prime Minister. Ever?
There's been a lot of debate over the past couple of weeks about whether David Cameron will supplant Neville Chamberlain in the history books as Britain's worst Prime Minister ever. For what it's worth, I'd say Cameron edges it. If you read Winston Churchill's (admittedly self-serving) history of World War II, you'll find that he is surprisingly respectful of Chamberlain. While he was frustrated at Chamberlain's attempts to find a peaceful deal with Hitler, culminating in the Munich accord, Churchill is full of praise for how Chamberlain turned on a dime as soon as he realized he had got it wrong, and threw all of his energies into preparing Britain for war. It's hard to see any of Cameron's contemporaries letting him off the hook like that.
Today, however, we have a powerful reminder that this is not just a two-horse race. The Chilcot Report into the 2003 Iraq invasion, more than ten years in the making and more than 2.5 million words long, provides a scalding appraisal of the actions of Tony Blair. In Chilcot's opinion, Blair misled Parliament and the country into thinking that there was no alternative to war; entered the conflict with no real legal justification: failed to provide adequate equipment for the thousands of men he so casually sent to war; and went into combat without even a moment's consideration for what would need to be done once the fighting ended. Except, of course, the fighting never really has ended, as this assessment by the CBC's Nahlah Ayed makes very clear.
Blair has offered a public act of contrition today, but as usual he has an excuse: "the intelligence assessments turned out to be wrong". Really? Even at the time there was a clear suspicion that those assessments were being manipulated for political purposes: the intelligence was being shaped around the decision to go to war, rather than the other way round. It's hard to forget General Colin Powell's embarrassing appearance at the UN Security Council, at which he presented the supposed evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Suffice to say the the parodies that immediately appeared online, featuring toy soldiers and Play-Doh, were at least as convincing as anything that Powell produced.
If Blair were still in office as Prime Minister, he would without doubt be forced to resign in disgrace and without delay. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to hold him properly to account for his actions. Since resigning on his own terms, he's had the better part of a decade to feather his nest with his consulting business and his public speaking gigs. Given the catalogue of deceit revealed by Chilcot. we can at least hope that companies will think twice about hiring him as a consultant again -- and that anyone attending one of his speeches stocks up on rotten eggs and fruit. It's the least he deserves.
Today, however, we have a powerful reminder that this is not just a two-horse race. The Chilcot Report into the 2003 Iraq invasion, more than ten years in the making and more than 2.5 million words long, provides a scalding appraisal of the actions of Tony Blair. In Chilcot's opinion, Blair misled Parliament and the country into thinking that there was no alternative to war; entered the conflict with no real legal justification: failed to provide adequate equipment for the thousands of men he so casually sent to war; and went into combat without even a moment's consideration for what would need to be done once the fighting ended. Except, of course, the fighting never really has ended, as this assessment by the CBC's Nahlah Ayed makes very clear.
Blair has offered a public act of contrition today, but as usual he has an excuse: "the intelligence assessments turned out to be wrong". Really? Even at the time there was a clear suspicion that those assessments were being manipulated for political purposes: the intelligence was being shaped around the decision to go to war, rather than the other way round. It's hard to forget General Colin Powell's embarrassing appearance at the UN Security Council, at which he presented the supposed evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Suffice to say the the parodies that immediately appeared online, featuring toy soldiers and Play-Doh, were at least as convincing as anything that Powell produced.
If Blair were still in office as Prime Minister, he would without doubt be forced to resign in disgrace and without delay. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to hold him properly to account for his actions. Since resigning on his own terms, he's had the better part of a decade to feather his nest with his consulting business and his public speaking gigs. Given the catalogue of deceit revealed by Chilcot. we can at least hope that companies will think twice about hiring him as a consultant again -- and that anyone attending one of his speeches stocks up on rotten eggs and fruit. It's the least he deserves.
Friday, 27 May 2016
Washed up pol seeks big bucks
We haven't heard much from Stephen Harper since he led his Tories to a heavy defeat in last October's Federal election. Last night he surfaced in Vancouver to give a brief and surprisingly upbeat speech, but it seems his political career is at an end. He's expected to resign his seat in Parliament very soon in order to seek his fortune in the private sector -- where, despite his free-market rhetoric, he's never actually worked.
Harper is an economist by training (yeah, I know -- not a lot of it seems to have sunk in) but it seems his chosen field going forward will be foreign affairs. He is reportedly going to set up some kind of consultancy practice. It seems unlikely, based on his track record in dealing with the rest of the world, that his clients will be able to turn to him for a balanced approach. Over his decade in power he enjoyed a permafrosty relationship with the United States; offered support to Israel that was embarrassing even to the Likudniks; talked tough against Russia in order to win the votes of the million or more Ukrainian Canadians; deployed six geriatric fighter jets to Syria for the fight against ISIS; and kept Canada aloof from any and all efforts to deal with climate change.
Still, a history of lies, failures and empty gestures need not keep an ex-PM from cashing in on his fame. Just ask Tony Blair, who has been positively rolling in dough since stepping down in the UK. Investment banks have beaten a path to his door with fistfuls of money. One of Tone's first prestige gigs was the little matter of bringing peace to the Middle East. Memorably, the day after he got the job he took off for a vacation in Barbados, and for all the good he's done in the world's most troubled region, he might just as well have stayed there ever since -- though I wouldn't wish that on the Bajans, who already have to suffer the presence of Cliff Richard and Simon Cowell.
Stephen Harper isn't the kind of swivel-eyed loon that Tony Blair has become, but at the same time, he doesn't carry the same degree of prestige -- Blair did, after all, bring the two sides together in Northern Ireland, a truly remarkable achievement. Still, he can probably count on a decent payday or two, and I'm fine with that, just as long as he never runs for elected office again.
Harper is an economist by training (yeah, I know -- not a lot of it seems to have sunk in) but it seems his chosen field going forward will be foreign affairs. He is reportedly going to set up some kind of consultancy practice. It seems unlikely, based on his track record in dealing with the rest of the world, that his clients will be able to turn to him for a balanced approach. Over his decade in power he enjoyed a permafrosty relationship with the United States; offered support to Israel that was embarrassing even to the Likudniks; talked tough against Russia in order to win the votes of the million or more Ukrainian Canadians; deployed six geriatric fighter jets to Syria for the fight against ISIS; and kept Canada aloof from any and all efforts to deal with climate change.
Still, a history of lies, failures and empty gestures need not keep an ex-PM from cashing in on his fame. Just ask Tony Blair, who has been positively rolling in dough since stepping down in the UK. Investment banks have beaten a path to his door with fistfuls of money. One of Tone's first prestige gigs was the little matter of bringing peace to the Middle East. Memorably, the day after he got the job he took off for a vacation in Barbados, and for all the good he's done in the world's most troubled region, he might just as well have stayed there ever since -- though I wouldn't wish that on the Bajans, who already have to suffer the presence of Cliff Richard and Simon Cowell.
Stephen Harper isn't the kind of swivel-eyed loon that Tony Blair has become, but at the same time, he doesn't carry the same degree of prestige -- Blair did, after all, bring the two sides together in Northern Ireland, a truly remarkable achievement. Still, he can probably count on a decent payday or two, and I'm fine with that, just as long as he never runs for elected office again.
Monday, 22 September 2014
Memo to Tony Blair: just SHUT UP!
I figure that Tony Blair doesn't even blow his nose these days unless someone else is paying to launder his handkerchiefs, so I wonder who's funding his latest outburst. The moneygrubbing warmonger has posted an essay on his website arguing that western countries need to commit ground forces in order to defeat the ISIS/ISIL threat. Air power alone won't do it, says he. He was on the news networks this morning with a deeply furrowed brow, delivering the same message.
These people never learn, do they? Blair has never admitted that he and his pals in London and Washington faked the case for war against Saddam Hussein back in 2003. Still less has he ever shown any sign of realizing that it was that misbegotten war that set off the mess threatening to incinerate the entire Middle East right now.
If we're going to send anyone in on the ground against ISIS, I nominate Blair, Bush 43 and Dick Cheney as the first guys to strap on the parachutes. It's your mess, gentlemen, and if anyone's going to risk their lives in a futile attempt to clean it up, it should be you.
These people never learn, do they? Blair has never admitted that he and his pals in London and Washington faked the case for war against Saddam Hussein back in 2003. Still less has he ever shown any sign of realizing that it was that misbegotten war that set off the mess threatening to incinerate the entire Middle East right now.
If we're going to send anyone in on the ground against ISIS, I nominate Blair, Bush 43 and Dick Cheney as the first guys to strap on the parachutes. It's your mess, gentlemen, and if anyone's going to risk their lives in a futile attempt to clean it up, it should be you.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Words fail me!
A recent opinion poll named Tony Blair as Britain's most-hated Prime Minister ever. And it's unlikely that this will help repair his reputation: he's taking on a new role as an economic adviser to Egypt's new strongman President el-Sisi. As one of the readers commenting on this report in The Guardian put it, "haven't these people suffered enough?"
When Blair was PM, he took next to no interest in economic matters. He left that part of the job to Gordon Brown, and we all know how well that worked out. Now he's clambering between the sheets with a regime that came to power after a military coup against an elected government, a regime that has become an international pariah thanks to the jailing of a group of journalists on transparently trumped-up charges.
But none of this seems to matter to Blair, the venal, mendacious, hypocritical, money-grubbing, influence-peddling, warmongering....oh! It looks as if words don't fail me after all!
When Blair was PM, he took next to no interest in economic matters. He left that part of the job to Gordon Brown, and we all know how well that worked out. Now he's clambering between the sheets with a regime that came to power after a military coup against an elected government, a regime that has become an international pariah thanks to the jailing of a group of journalists on transparently trumped-up charges.
But none of this seems to matter to Blair, the venal, mendacious, hypocritical, money-grubbing, influence-peddling, warmongering....oh! It looks as if words don't fail me after all!
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Still crazy after all these years
You might think Tony Blair would have the sense to keep his head below the parapet as Iraq teeters on the brink of implosion. But he's not that smart, and he's got his "reputation" to defend, so he's come out with a statement to the effect that none of this is in any way the result of the US-UK invasion back in 2003.
He is, of course, delusional, and it's heartening to see how many experts have rounded on him unmercifully. And non-experts -- at the time I'm posting this, there are 1168 comments on the BBC website article, and by the time you click on the link, no doubt there will be more. If there are any in there defending him, I sure haven't found them.
He is, of course, delusional, and it's heartening to see how many experts have rounded on him unmercifully. And non-experts -- at the time I'm posting this, there are 1168 comments on the BBC website article, and by the time you click on the link, no doubt there will be more. If there are any in there defending him, I sure haven't found them.
Monday, 29 October 2012
Phoney Tony wants a new job
Tony Blair says the EU needs an elected President. I wonder if he has any candidates in mind.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Our once and future King (in his dreams)
Such a pleasure to see the Great Dissimulator, Tony Blair, back on our TV screens yesterday. Phoney Tony magnanimously took time out from his multitude of day jobs (among them, bringing peace to the Middle East and advising the senior management of JPMorgan; anyone have any updates on how those are going?) to appear before the long-running Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking. A bit greyer, and sporting a tasteful tan that he probably didn't lay down in Bognor Regis, he seemed otherwise to be little changed: still managing to appear self-assured and slightly unhinged at the same time.
There's a fascinating summary of the media coverage of Blair's testimony (and even more about his appearance and his mien) here, but it's worth taking a more detailed look at some of the things he actually said. Here's his explanation for why he decided to try to "manage" the relationship with the media (i.e. the Murdoch empire):
“The truth is that I felt that if I had taken on this issue, I would have been engaged in a titanic battle with immensely powerful media interests who would not have hesitated to go after me and my Government with everything at their disposal. It would have, to a large degree, dominated the agenda of the Government.”
That's pretty much a textbook definition of leadership, isn't it? Getting your capitulation in first. But at least he was doing it in the best interests of the country:
There's a fascinating summary of the media coverage of Blair's testimony (and even more about his appearance and his mien) here, but it's worth taking a more detailed look at some of the things he actually said. Here's his explanation for why he decided to try to "manage" the relationship with the media (i.e. the Murdoch empire):
“The truth is that I felt that if I had taken on this issue, I would have been engaged in a titanic battle with immensely powerful media interests who would not have hesitated to go after me and my Government with everything at their disposal. It would have, to a large degree, dominated the agenda of the Government.”
That's pretty much a textbook definition of leadership, isn't it? Getting your capitulation in first. But at least he was doing it in the best interests of the country:
“Our priority had to be around the economy, schools, health,
crime, security and foreign policy.”
Too bad, then, that those aren't the things the Blair years are likely to be remembered for, at least not in a good way. But never fear, it all turned out well in the end:
“I know Rupert Murdoch and his family far better today than
I did when I was Prime Minister. I would never have become godfather to their
child on the basis of my relationship in Government.”
Or, in the words of an old Irish ditty, "your reward you've won/for a job well done".
In recent weeks Blair has let it be known that he's interested in making a return to the UK political scene. Surely the only job he thinks suited to his exalted profile -- the one where you get to live in the big white palace at the end of The Mall -- is already spoken for, far into the future? But who knows? This being Blair, he may have put together some sort of deal with Prince William to squeeze the heir-apparent to one side. Which, come to think of it, might go down quite well with the voters.
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Doing God, in London and Beijing
Tony Blair's lacertilian* press secretary, Alastair Campbell, once remarked that the Labour government "didn't do God", even though Blair himself famously did, often giving the impression that his most controversial decisions had been taken after direct talks with the Almighty.
The problem with God, of course, is that whether you "do" him or not, he never seems to give up and go away. Especially at the Christmas season, He seems to bring confusion both to those who would rather not acknowledge even the possibility of his existence, and to those who aren't quite sure what to make of Him. Thus, in The Times for December 26, we saw a quite remarkable juxtaposition of stories.
The main headline on the front page of the paper was 'Archbishop under fire for "political" riot sermon'. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had chosen to use his Christmas Day sermon to link last summer's riots in London and elsewhere with the activities of City speculators: "The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society. Bonds have been broken, trust has been lost....Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today's financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark".
Just a couple of weeks ago, PM David Cameron, who by his own admission "does God" a whole lot less than Tony Blair did, had taken it upon himself to call for a return to Christian values in Britain, calling on Archbishop Williams's Church of England in particular "to help shape the future of our communities". Dr Williams may well have intended his Christmas sermon to take up that challenge; if so, he will have been disappointed by the reaction. Though the government itself has refrained from commenting, a Tory MP, Gary Streeter -- who is, rather surprisingly in the circumstances, a Christian himself -- pronounced that "The Archbishop of Canterbury is on safer ground when he sticks to moral and spiritual issues. He would be wiser to leave the politics to the politicians and focus on giving us much-needed spiritual leadership". Turn that on its head and it reads remarkably like an admission that there is no morality in politics, which rather proves the Archbishop's point.
The rest of the media paid little attention to this spat, preferring to focus on the Duke of Edinburgh's stent and the Downton Abbey Christmas special. The fact that The Times made it the lead story for the day perhaps permits us to draw the inference that the paper agrees that Dr Williams and his ilk should butt out of politics. This makes the editorial that appeared on the very next page of the paper all the more surprising.
The editorial was titled "Darkness at Christmas: China's communists appear intent on snuffing out the growth of Christianity." This is, as you would surmise, a robust criticism of the Chinese government's attitude to the rapid growth in religious practice in the country. A couple of extracts will give the flavour: "The party sees religion, and Christianity in particular, as a threat because it worries about the existence of a rival organisation whose members have a different loyalty and are guided by priorities set by others". And "The real problem for China, as it was for the Soviet Union, is the growing cynicism and spiritual vacuum in public life. This makes it increasingly difficult to underpin standards of ethics or to enforce respect for social norms".
Substitute Britain for China in that last quote, and it would have slotted seamlessly into Dr Williams's speech, whereupon The Times would presumably have seen fit to refute it on the front page! There is, of course, an explanation for this glaring inconsistency: The Times is now by far the most pro-Cameron newspaper in the UK, and seems increasingly unwilling to brook any criticism of him, even from the head of the established church.
* You can probably guess, but if you can't....look it up!
The problem with God, of course, is that whether you "do" him or not, he never seems to give up and go away. Especially at the Christmas season, He seems to bring confusion both to those who would rather not acknowledge even the possibility of his existence, and to those who aren't quite sure what to make of Him. Thus, in The Times for December 26, we saw a quite remarkable juxtaposition of stories.
The main headline on the front page of the paper was 'Archbishop under fire for "political" riot sermon'. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had chosen to use his Christmas Day sermon to link last summer's riots in London and elsewhere with the activities of City speculators: "The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society. Bonds have been broken, trust has been lost....Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today's financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark".
Just a couple of weeks ago, PM David Cameron, who by his own admission "does God" a whole lot less than Tony Blair did, had taken it upon himself to call for a return to Christian values in Britain, calling on Archbishop Williams's Church of England in particular "to help shape the future of our communities". Dr Williams may well have intended his Christmas sermon to take up that challenge; if so, he will have been disappointed by the reaction. Though the government itself has refrained from commenting, a Tory MP, Gary Streeter -- who is, rather surprisingly in the circumstances, a Christian himself -- pronounced that "The Archbishop of Canterbury is on safer ground when he sticks to moral and spiritual issues. He would be wiser to leave the politics to the politicians and focus on giving us much-needed spiritual leadership". Turn that on its head and it reads remarkably like an admission that there is no morality in politics, which rather proves the Archbishop's point.
The rest of the media paid little attention to this spat, preferring to focus on the Duke of Edinburgh's stent and the Downton Abbey Christmas special. The fact that The Times made it the lead story for the day perhaps permits us to draw the inference that the paper agrees that Dr Williams and his ilk should butt out of politics. This makes the editorial that appeared on the very next page of the paper all the more surprising.
The editorial was titled "Darkness at Christmas: China's communists appear intent on snuffing out the growth of Christianity." This is, as you would surmise, a robust criticism of the Chinese government's attitude to the rapid growth in religious practice in the country. A couple of extracts will give the flavour: "The party sees religion, and Christianity in particular, as a threat because it worries about the existence of a rival organisation whose members have a different loyalty and are guided by priorities set by others". And "The real problem for China, as it was for the Soviet Union, is the growing cynicism and spiritual vacuum in public life. This makes it increasingly difficult to underpin standards of ethics or to enforce respect for social norms".
Substitute Britain for China in that last quote, and it would have slotted seamlessly into Dr Williams's speech, whereupon The Times would presumably have seen fit to refute it on the front page! There is, of course, an explanation for this glaring inconsistency: The Times is now by far the most pro-Cameron newspaper in the UK, and seems increasingly unwilling to brook any criticism of him, even from the head of the established church.
* You can probably guess, but if you can't....look it up!
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Rats and sinking ships
The phone hacking scandal is telling us as much about British politicians as it is about the Murdoch Empire -- and neither side is coming out of it well.
Last night, who should pitch up on Wolf Blitzer's CNBC snorefest, "The Situation Room", but our old friend Tony Blair. Tony told Wolf that intrusive and obtrusive media attention had blighted his life, and that of his equally shy and retiring wife Cherie, throughout his fifteen years in front-line politics.
It must have been hard on you, Tony. What a shame you were never in a position to do anything about it at the time.
Little known fact: Rupert Murdoch holds a papal knighthood (Order of St Gregory), granted over a decade ago for his financial help to the Los Angeles Cathedral project. Now there are some suggestions that the Pope should de-knight him. Rupert's past 80, so he might need to take God's disapproval a bit more seriously than Tony Blair's.
Last night, who should pitch up on Wolf Blitzer's CNBC snorefest, "The Situation Room", but our old friend Tony Blair. Tony told Wolf that intrusive and obtrusive media attention had blighted his life, and that of his equally shy and retiring wife Cherie, throughout his fifteen years in front-line politics.
It must have been hard on you, Tony. What a shame you were never in a position to do anything about it at the time.
Little known fact: Rupert Murdoch holds a papal knighthood (Order of St Gregory), granted over a decade ago for his financial help to the Los Angeles Cathedral project. Now there are some suggestions that the Pope should de-knight him. Rupert's past 80, so he might need to take God's disapproval a bit more seriously than Tony Blair's.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Blair's presidential ambitions
Tony Blair has a book to sell: the paperback edition of his bizarre memoir, A Journey. To help promote it he's given an "exclusive" interview to The Times, which has of course been picked up by the rest of the papers. A lot of it is about the Arab Spring, and I'm sure we'd all agree that the man who collaborated in the invasion of Iraq and tried to bring Colonel Gadhafi in from the cold should be given a respectful hearing on that topic. (No tittering at the back, there!) However, Tony also has a few thoughts on the future of Europe. This is from The Guardian's report:
Blair also calls for an elected European president who would have a mandate for far-reaching reforms including collaborating on taxes.
In an interview in the Times he says such an office would give Europe "strong, collective leadership and direction". But he accepts that the idea has "no chance of being accepted at the present time".
I obviously can't speak for the other 360 million voters in Europe, but I would venture to suggest that if Blair really wants to see a European presidency, the most important contribution he can make is to declare in the strongest possible terms that he will never be a candidate for the job.
Blair also calls for an elected European president who would have a mandate for far-reaching reforms including collaborating on taxes.
In an interview in the Times he says such an office would give Europe "strong, collective leadership and direction". But he accepts that the idea has "no chance of being accepted at the present time".
I obviously can't speak for the other 360 million voters in Europe, but I would venture to suggest that if Blair really wants to see a European presidency, the most important contribution he can make is to declare in the strongest possible terms that he will never be a candidate for the job.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
God let down by Tony Blair
A few weeks back there was a public debate in Toronto about the role of religion in public life. Speaking on behalf of God was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair; opposing him was the writer (and sadly, current cancer victim) Christopher Hitchens. The BBC News channel chose to show the debate, with virtually no advance billing, early in the evening of New Year's Day. Shame, because it was well worth watching.
The participants offered an interesting contrast. One was an important political thinker, a former leftist yet a supporter of the Iraq invasion of 2003, and the author this year of a well-received autobiography with a slightly naff title*. The other was Tony Blair.
A vote taken among the invited audience after the debate showed Hitchens as the clear winner. Watching the broadcast, it was impossible to disagree. Blair's argument in favour of religion basically boiled down to a repeated assertion that religious people do good things for other people. Since nobody could deny that atheists and agnostics also do good things, it was hard to see what this was supposed to prove. Even the behaviour of the two participants worked in Hitchens's favour. When Blair was speaking, Hitchens took copious notes in order to frame his rebuttals, whereas when Hitchens had the floor, Blair sat smirking and gurning in his usual style.
A better debater might well have scored more heavily at Hitchens's expense, because his bog-standard modern atheism prompts many questions. For example:
- If it's laughably primitive to believe in heaven because nobody has ever seen it, how come it's at the cutting edge of science to believe in billions of parallel universes, or in dark matter and dark energy, all of which are equally unseen?
- How did consciousness evolve?
- Given that nature is driven by the survival of the fittest, where do human moral attitudes come from?
You, good reader, no doubt have your own ideas about these things, as do I. The sad part of the Hitchens-Blair debate is that because of Blair's inept performance, such questions were never aired.
* "Hitch-22". Blair's doorstopper was called "A Journey".
The participants offered an interesting contrast. One was an important political thinker, a former leftist yet a supporter of the Iraq invasion of 2003, and the author this year of a well-received autobiography with a slightly naff title*. The other was Tony Blair.
A vote taken among the invited audience after the debate showed Hitchens as the clear winner. Watching the broadcast, it was impossible to disagree. Blair's argument in favour of religion basically boiled down to a repeated assertion that religious people do good things for other people. Since nobody could deny that atheists and agnostics also do good things, it was hard to see what this was supposed to prove. Even the behaviour of the two participants worked in Hitchens's favour. When Blair was speaking, Hitchens took copious notes in order to frame his rebuttals, whereas when Hitchens had the floor, Blair sat smirking and gurning in his usual style.
A better debater might well have scored more heavily at Hitchens's expense, because his bog-standard modern atheism prompts many questions. For example:
- If it's laughably primitive to believe in heaven because nobody has ever seen it, how come it's at the cutting edge of science to believe in billions of parallel universes, or in dark matter and dark energy, all of which are equally unseen?
- How did consciousness evolve?
- Given that nature is driven by the survival of the fittest, where do human moral attitudes come from?
You, good reader, no doubt have your own ideas about these things, as do I. The sad part of the Hitchens-Blair debate is that because of Blair's inept performance, such questions were never aired.
* "Hitch-22". Blair's doorstopper was called "A Journey".
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
"Che" Blair
I haven't read Tony Blair's abysmally titled memoirs, "A Journey" (been watching too much reality TV, Tone?), but I've already come across the most gobsmacking claim in recent literature: "my soul is and always will be that of a rebel.”
Well, now it really does all fall into place: the mooched holidays in edgy Barbados with the infamously seditious social activist Cliff Richard; the mooched holidays in Tuscany with the ultra progressive Silvio Berlusconi; the attempts to get the taxpayer to buy him a jet (Blair Force One) to ferry him about the place; the accumulation of a large property portfolio; the pro bono post-retirement work with progressive financial institutions like JP Morgan and Zurich Insurance; the hobnobbing with the famously enlightened rulers of the Middle East. How did we ever fail to recognise over the years that we were in the presence of a modern-day Oliver Cromwell, a Che Guevara for the new millennium?
Blair may be more self-deluded than Jedward, but at least he's brought us one of the great headlines of this or any other year, courtesy of a Times sub who knows how to wield a colon. The print edition's front page today leads with "Blair: why Labour lost". He sure was.
Well, now it really does all fall into place: the mooched holidays in edgy Barbados with the infamously seditious social activist Cliff Richard; the mooched holidays in Tuscany with the ultra progressive Silvio Berlusconi; the attempts to get the taxpayer to buy him a jet (Blair Force One) to ferry him about the place; the accumulation of a large property portfolio; the pro bono post-retirement work with progressive financial institutions like JP Morgan and Zurich Insurance; the hobnobbing with the famously enlightened rulers of the Middle East. How did we ever fail to recognise over the years that we were in the presence of a modern-day Oliver Cromwell, a Che Guevara for the new millennium?
Blair may be more self-deluded than Jedward, but at least he's brought us one of the great headlines of this or any other year, courtesy of a Times sub who knows how to wield a colon. The print edition's front page today leads with "Blair: why Labour lost". He sure was.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Taxi for Mr Byers
So three former members of Tony Blair's cabinet -- Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt -- have been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party in an influence peddling row. Hell guys -- at least the greedmeister himself had the sense and good grace to wait until he was out of office before pimping himself out to anyone with a fat wallet and a private plane. By comparison with Tony's millions, this lot are all so tawdry. Witness Byers' pathetic failure to realise he was being fitted up as he compared himself to a "cab for hire". Maybe he was just trying to say he was happy to work, but not if it meant he had to go south of the river.
Seriously, though, how much better can things get for David Cameron? Government seemingly powerless to do anything about the BA strike, railways and British Gas now facing their own walkouts, sleaze in the Labour ranks, and now the fragrant Mrs Cam announces she's gestating another bairn. Alastair Darling's budget is going to have to be pretty damn special to overcome that little lot.
Seriously, though, how much better can things get for David Cameron? Government seemingly powerless to do anything about the BA strike, railways and British Gas now facing their own walkouts, sleaze in the Labour ranks, and now the fragrant Mrs Cam announces she's gestating another bairn. Alastair Darling's budget is going to have to be pretty damn special to overcome that little lot.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
He's never going to get it
I'd describe Tony Blair's testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry on Friday as disgraceful but predictable. Lord Goldsmith admits that he agonised over the legal case for war, Jack Straw says supporting the decision to go to war was the hardest thing he's ever done....and Blair? He'd do it again, and what's more (a new twist, this) he thinks that the current situation regarding terrorism in general and Iran in particular shows how right he was.
The amazing thing is that there is now much more than circumstantial evidence that he is lying about all this now, just as he was in the run-up to war. Yesterday he tried to suggest that the 9/11 attacks changed his whole approach to Iraq, by bringing the risks posed by "terrorists with WMDs" into clearer focus. Yet a newly-released memo shows that he signed the UK up to join the US in pushing for regime change in Iraq in March 2001, a full six months before the atrocities in New York and DC. Even at that stage the UK and US had cooked up a strategy to force the issue by making a series of demands of the Saddam Hussein regime in the near certain knowledge that he would be unwilling to accede to them, thus providing a casus belli.
In his Times column today, Matthew Parris says that he finally realises that Blair sees the world in Manichaean terms: a stark division between good and evil. This would certainly explain why Blair was so willing to go along with US attempts to conflate Saddam's regime with al-Qaeda, and why he feels comfortable lumping them together in his testimony as "these people". (How long, I wonder, before that dismissive phrase is translated on Islamist websites as "Moslems"?)
Perhaps most disgracefully of all, Blair took it upon himself to call for a similar course of action to be taken against Iran. That country, he suggested, poses a bigger threat to the UK now than Iraq did in 2003. As we've all -- all except for Tony Blair that is -- long ago realised that Iraq posed effectively no threat to the UK back in 2003, it's to be hoped that Gordon Brown or whoever is in charge in a few months time sets a rather higher hurdle if and when decision time on Iran rolls around.
The amazing thing is that there is now much more than circumstantial evidence that he is lying about all this now, just as he was in the run-up to war. Yesterday he tried to suggest that the 9/11 attacks changed his whole approach to Iraq, by bringing the risks posed by "terrorists with WMDs" into clearer focus. Yet a newly-released memo shows that he signed the UK up to join the US in pushing for regime change in Iraq in March 2001, a full six months before the atrocities in New York and DC. Even at that stage the UK and US had cooked up a strategy to force the issue by making a series of demands of the Saddam Hussein regime in the near certain knowledge that he would be unwilling to accede to them, thus providing a casus belli.
In his Times column today, Matthew Parris says that he finally realises that Blair sees the world in Manichaean terms: a stark division between good and evil. This would certainly explain why Blair was so willing to go along with US attempts to conflate Saddam's regime with al-Qaeda, and why he feels comfortable lumping them together in his testimony as "these people". (How long, I wonder, before that dismissive phrase is translated on Islamist websites as "Moslems"?)
Perhaps most disgracefully of all, Blair took it upon himself to call for a similar course of action to be taken against Iran. That country, he suggested, poses a bigger threat to the UK now than Iraq did in 2003. As we've all -- all except for Tony Blair that is -- long ago realised that Iraq posed effectively no threat to the UK back in 2003, it's to be hoped that Gordon Brown or whoever is in charge in a few months time sets a rather higher hurdle if and when decision time on Iran rolls around.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Locking the stable door (1)
Word is that Labour Party grandees are worried that Tony Blair may prove to be a liability for the party when the election campaign finally gets under way. They are concerned that his public testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq war will only serve to stir up "those who will always see Tony as a war criminal". They are, naturally, blaming Gordon Brown for being so crass as to call the inquiry in the first place, even though he did his best to limit its impact by ensuring that it would not report until well after the election.
According to The Times, Blair's advisors are urging him to take "a more nuanced approach" in his testimony. Well, if that means what I assume it means, Blair of all people should have no trouble complying.
According to The Times, Blair's advisors are urging him to take "a more nuanced approach" in his testimony. Well, if that means what I assume it means, Blair of all people should have no trouble complying.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Blair in bald-faced liar shock
Has there ever been anyone so convinced of his own rectitude than Tony Blair? I mean, even Joe Stalin or Pol Pot may have had twinges of doubt or even remorse from time to time, but there's no sign of any such thing from Blair. His amazing weekend interview with Fern Britton shows he is totally unrepentant over his decision to lie to Parliament and the British public about the case for the Iraq war. He doesn't seem particularly bothered by the fact that thousands of "coalition" troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died as a result.
In any case, why has Blair suddenly decided to do a TV interview on the subject; and why with Fern Britton rather than with someone with more gravitas? (Actually, the answer to that last one isn't hard to guess). He's going to face questioning on the whole issue when he goes before the Chilcot inquiry in January, but it seems that a lot of his testimony will be taken in private. Is his lust for public attention so great that he feels a compelling urge to put his side of the story in front of the public anyway? I can't see any other explanation, because his side of the story turns out to be as bad or worse than the suspicions of his fiercest critics.
Many years ago my firm hired a new boss from outside the company. On his first morning with the firm, he called all of the senior staff together and said that anyone caught trying to conceal loss-making trades would be fired. No second chances, because "if you'd do it once, you'd do it again". All those people paying Blair serious money (JPM, Zurich Insurance, the publishers of his autobiography, whoever is paying for his pointless role in the Middle East) might do well to keep that in mind.
In any case, why has Blair suddenly decided to do a TV interview on the subject; and why with Fern Britton rather than with someone with more gravitas? (Actually, the answer to that last one isn't hard to guess). He's going to face questioning on the whole issue when he goes before the Chilcot inquiry in January, but it seems that a lot of his testimony will be taken in private. Is his lust for public attention so great that he feels a compelling urge to put his side of the story in front of the public anyway? I can't see any other explanation, because his side of the story turns out to be as bad or worse than the suspicions of his fiercest critics.
Many years ago my firm hired a new boss from outside the company. On his first morning with the firm, he called all of the senior staff together and said that anyone caught trying to conceal loss-making trades would be fired. No second chances, because "if you'd do it once, you'd do it again". All those people paying Blair serious money (JPM, Zurich Insurance, the publishers of his autobiography, whoever is paying for his pointless role in the Middle East) might do well to keep that in mind.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Beckham for President!
Even the most passionate Europhile must feel heartsick at the prospect of Tony Blair becoming the first President of the EU.
Tony Blair, the man who alienated most of Europe with his grovelling attitude to the United States and his gung-ho support for the invasion of Iraq.
Tony Blair, the man whose high-profile, high-cost role as a peace envoy in the Middle East has been so ineffective that you can't even call it a failure. In order to fail, you have to try, and there's not much evidence that Blair has done that. (As soon as he landed the job, he swanned off to Barbados for a three-week break. That rather set the tone for the whole pointless enterprise).
Tony Blair, the relentless moneygrubber who is now charging people for the privilege of getting photographed with him -- see previous posting.
The EU Presidency is an almost entirely ceremonial post, so in a sense the vacuous, self-obsessed publicity hound Blair is well qualified. However, if those are the criteria, why not appoint David Beckham? He's well-liked across Europe, his missus would be thrilled -- and he's already got his own palace.
Tony Blair, the man who alienated most of Europe with his grovelling attitude to the United States and his gung-ho support for the invasion of Iraq.
Tony Blair, the man whose high-profile, high-cost role as a peace envoy in the Middle East has been so ineffective that you can't even call it a failure. In order to fail, you have to try, and there's not much evidence that Blair has done that. (As soon as he landed the job, he swanned off to Barbados for a three-week break. That rather set the tone for the whole pointless enterprise).
Tony Blair, the relentless moneygrubber who is now charging people for the privilege of getting photographed with him -- see previous posting.
The EU Presidency is an almost entirely ceremonial post, so in a sense the vacuous, self-obsessed publicity hound Blair is well qualified. However, if those are the criteria, why not appoint David Beckham? He's well-liked across Europe, his missus would be thrilled -- and he's already got his own palace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)